NCAA College WS

mrm21711 · #1 (**permalink**) Thu May 27, 2004, 08:46pm

In tonight's Oklahoma & Washington game, did anybody see that throw back from the OK catcher to third base in the top of the fifth inning? The throw was coming to the third baseman, who was called for obstruction on the third base runner, who was rewarded third base after being tagged out by a mile. I knew the NCAA rule was diff from the Pros & NFHS, u cannot block a base while waiting to get a throw right? You must have the ball? PLease respond on this & the play if u saw it. Thanks

whiskers_ump · #2 (**permalink**) Thu May 27, 2004, 09:08pm

Remembering that they did not show the play too many times,
from what I saw was OBS. However, I also saw the 3BU
signalling what I thought was fair ball. He was pumping
his OBS signal.

LT · #3 (**permalink**) Thu May 27, 2004, 09:51pm

Saw it....good call. Took "courage" to make that call, but it was the right one. Replay did confirm that 3rd base was blocking the bag...well up the line without the ball.

NCAA rule: Rule 9 Section 17 - Obstruction...see note #1 "The defensive player must be in the process of catching the ball and not merely positioning, waiting for a throw to arrive."

Rule 9 Section 18 c. Fielder or Catcher Obstruction.
#1 "A fielder who is not in possession of the ball, not in the act of fielding a batted ball or not about to receive a thrown ball, shall not impede the batter, batter-runner or runner.

I think the umpire was pumping the Obstruction call to "sell" the call.

I've worked several summer high level tourneys with this umpire and he knows the game.

wadeintothem · #4 (**permalink**) Thu May 27, 2004, 09:55pm

I dont know "who" it was exactly .. but I agree with the above. I've watched all the games today.

It looked like a good call ..especially for ASA - but I am unsure for NCAA rules as I dont know them.

They did not show it enough or from good angles for us Armchair Umpires.

I thought the umpire was signalling out... and then changed to OBS... I'm not familiar with the fist pumping thing though.

EDIT!: I see the rule was written here - it was OBS. She stopped that runner cold and didnt have the ball.

Ed Maeder · #5 (**permalink**) Thu May 27, 2004, 10:36pm

I thought it was a great call. The third basemen wasn't about to receive the ball even after ESPN's terrible camera work and late pick up of the play. The wide angle they showed gave a little better look at it though. Once again the announcers didn't even know what was going on. They never even mentioned the word obstruction. If I hear Michell Smith say "with out a doubt" one more time I think I'll just turn off the sound and watch the game in silence. It would probably be better that way any how. These ladies may be able to play the game very well but they need to find a different profession when it comes to commentary.

[Edited by Ed Maeder on May 27th, 2004 at 11:53 PM]

BigUmpJohn · #6 (**permalink**) Thu May 27, 2004, 11:09pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed Maeder
I thought it was a great call. The third basemen wasn't about to receive the ball even after ESPN's terrible camera work and late pick up of the play. The wide angle they showed gave a little better look at it though. Once again the announcers didn't even know what was going on. They never even mentioned the word obstruction. If I hear Michell Smith say "with out a doubt" one more time I think I'll just turn off the sound and watch the game in silence. It would probably be better that way any how. These ladies may be able to play the game very well but they need to find a different profession when it comes to commentary.

Without a doubt it was the right call. Couldn't resist. It is amazing how these people cannot comment on what they see the right way. Neither one mentioned anything about obstruction and I had to use the Tivo a couple of times just to make sure I thought I saw obstruction thanks to the tremendous camera work of the ESPN cameramen. And is it just me, or are all of these games CREEEEEEEEEEPPPPINNNGGGG by at an extrememly SLLLOOOOWWWWWW pace? I would say without a doubt, but I think the words have lost their meaning now.

Steve M · #7 (**permalink**) Fri May 28, 2004, 03:31am

I saw the game and think I agreed with the obstruction call, too. It would be nice if they'd have an umpire in the booth - but that's not likely to happen. It would have been nice to have had a different angle on that play - maybe next year.

Yes, the games are all taking over 2 hours - for the most part, college games do not take anywhere near that long. But TV is involved, so there's more time between innings to fill the time slot. I'll take the longer games if that means they will be on TV.

kellerumps · #8 (**permalink**) Fri May 28, 2004, 07:53am

Saw it and thought Tom got it exactly right. The NCAA rule is still has "About to receive" in the rule, but we have been instructed all year to tighten up OBS calls.

2 Hour game times is about the norm. According to last years umpires, the games actually went quicker because of T.V. I guess ESPN was constantly telling everyone to hurry up.

Dakota · #9 (**permalink**) Fri May 28, 2004, 07:53am

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve M
It would be nice if they'd have an umpire in the booth - but that's not likely to happen.

The booth crew is there to entertain (or add to the entertainment). Even though we get passionate about the rules, interpretations, and mechanics amoung ourselves, to the larger public we would be somewhere between a crushing bore and terminally geeky on this stuff.

I'd settle for an umpire in the control booth providing correct rulings into the earphones of the on-air "talent."

kono · #10 (**permalink**) Fri May 28, 2004, 08:09am

Quote:

Originally posted by Dakota
... to the larger public we would be somewhere between a crushing bore and terminally geeky on this stuff.

Sooooo....You're telling me that my wife and kids are right??

mrm21711 · #11 (**permalink**) Sun May 30, 2004, 10:05pm

Whats up with those NCAA umpires, they are like robots. What u guys think?

LT · #12 (**permalink**) Sun May 30, 2004, 11:17pm

It's the mechanics that they teach at the higher level. Everybody does the same...it's what is expected...if you want to be in that game level.

kellerumps · #13 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 07:23am

Well Put.

IRISHMAFIA · #14 (**permalink**) Mon May 31, 2004, 09:05am

Quote:

Originally posted by kellerumps
Well Put.

Kellerumps! Just who I was looking for.

'splain this to me, please.

What's up with the BUs using a baseline-extended position set-up BEHIND the play? I've noticed this over the past few days.

For example, if the ball is on the left side of the infield and a runner at 2B, the BU sets up on a 3rd-to-2nd baseline extended. If there is a throw from that side, the only way the umpire sees the play is if the defender stays off to the side. If they attempt to get between the base and the runner, the only thing the umpire is going to see is the numbers on the back of the defender.

Thinking through such a play, it seems a 1st-to-2nd baseline extended would allow a better view of any possible play at a 90degree angle to the play, 45degree to the base.

Now, if the umpire was just moving in that direction enroute to a better view from the 1B side of a possible play, I could understand that. However, when I've noticed this, the umpire is moving to a point and stopping dead on a dime.

Is this something in the NCAA clinics, something just installed for this tournament, or have I just seen the same umpire out of position?

Thanks for your help.

[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on May 31st, 2004 at 10:08 AM]

kellerumps · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Jun 01, 2004, 07:29am

Mike,

I understand what you are saying. That position is what the NCAA is teaching us. We find that seam from 3rd base line extended and make our call. Also please understand that we are supposed to be 8 feet away on tag plays so we are also able to look down on the play as well. Emily calls that the 3rd dimension.